After reading “The New Jim Crow”, it became clear that the government is far from an institution of peace and order with a role of serving the citizens. Paternalistic and authoritarian drug policies effectively terrorize citizens. These harsh tactics isolate drug users by reinforcing the negative implications of their actions through disproportionate sentencing, social degradation, and a felony conviction. While these threats may prevent an individual from committing the crime in the first place, punitive measures only cause more damage in the long run, sending users into a downward spiral with no hope for escape. In the United Kingdom, the Merseyside model offers an alternative to drug enforcement. It was heartening to see that law enforcement officials followed a heartening policy which sought to rehabilitate rather than punish. Could the punitive approach the United States law enforcement officials follow be a result of cultural differences or is financial gain the underlying motive?
May 16 trip
Our last field trip – and last day of class! – will be to VOCAL. see link below. afterwards we’ll go get ice cream and/or sit outside and talk. my intended ice cream spot is Sky Ice on 5th Ave, they make their own gelato and sorbet, and also cook up good thai food (weird combo, i know, but it’s all good).
Drug Users: Criminals? Or Patients?
One of Michelle Alexander’s main points was that no one benefits from applying overly punitive measures to nonviolent offenders (especially). The drug war in the US has a habit of criminalizing these nonviolent offenders, that doesn’t help people quit or get back on track but keeps them in a negative cycle.
So I’m touched, in a way, by the Dutch/European view of things:
“The Dutch, being sober and pragmatic people…opt rather for a realistic and practical approach to the drug problem….The drug problem should not be primarily seen as a problem of police and justice. It is essentially a matter of health and social well-being” (Marlatt 31).
How far is to far?
At first, harm reduction scared me a bit. Why should we ge giving handouts thus enabling destructive behavior? Since then, I have come to the realization, and seen the stats, to support this cause and its effects on the drug community, but it seems that the Dutch may have taken this to far. I can’t argue with the fact that their system has had positive effects, but the implications are hard to fathom. Truthfully, my argument falls apart when we look at the desirable prosperity and freedom in the Netherlands, but how far can this go? Once Marijuana becomes legal in the US, what will the next step be? Im curious to discuss this in class.
Harm Reduction The Non-American Way
When Marlatt spoke about what harm reduction means in other countries such as the Netherlands, I was surprised at the approach those foreign countries took to control the consequences of drug usage and prostitution. I definitely felt like one of those foreign visitors when I read the chapter, “struck with what appears to be a liberal and permissive approach to drugs and sex”. (31) As we know, in the United States, it is illegal to use illicit drugs like marijuana, and if you get caught using it or possessing it, the police will arrest you and eventually, you will be sent to court and even perhaps to jail for breaking the law and taking part in life-threatening activities. Sure, there is rehab but that’s usually not until you go through all of these criminal proceedings. However, in places like Amsterdam, their public health policies are quite the opposite. They are not particularly promoting drug use and unsafe sexual activities, but they are doing what they can to help the people avoid facing the consequences of engaging in these matters. It is shocking to me to hear about how accessible drugs are given to its users in settings like the “coffee shops” but yet I am rather relieved that free sterile syringes, and condoms are widely available too to back up those actions. I understand that many people just can’t help it but to keep using drugs due to addiction or having sex with strangers because that is their way of making a living so at that point, it would be quite ineffective to have the justice system jump in and make these people’s lives more difficult just like what happened in the War on Drugs. I personally believe too that it is more effective to have these low-threshold and high-threshold programs which gives these people a variety of options on how to go about getting their lives back together and not fall under pressure with the government on how they should live their lives that I’m sure these people consciously chose to live.
It seems as if the United States would be much more efficient in following through with the Dutch model of harm reduction but I know it would be very controversial because it would seem as if the government doesn’t mind that all these illegal and dangerous activities are allowed or even favored. I think the government has to realize that the reason there are laws on these matters is because using drugs and having many sexual partners without protection can lead to very bad consequences for everyone involved in it. If these actions were beneficial to our health, of course there wouldn’t be laws limiting these actions. We have to get over the stigma we expect and protect our people the best way over the reputation we want. The Dutch model strikingly reminds me of the van we visited on our Coney Island class trip that gave counseling, free sterile syringes, condoms, etc. Their goal wasn’t to encourage people to do more drugs and sex to ruin their health or to arrest these ‘potential criminals’ but to support them in being as healthy as possible while doing these things and hopefully, on their way to ending their drug usage and safe from diseases like STDs, HIV and AIDs. Perhaps that van is the start of a new and reinvented approach to dealing with these public health matters in the United States.
Do you think the current way of harm reduction in the United States is ideal, or is there a more effective, efficient and productive approach?
Harm Reduction: Governance and Government
It was interesting for me to think about just how much of law is unwritten, and decided by individuals, making up a larger system. This makes for vastly different approaches to drug charges, not only in our country but around the world. It’s bizarre to think about how relaxed other developed countries are compared to our legislation regarding the same offences, to the point that a charge could be considered a felony in the United States and a reason for assistance and medical attention in Europe.
I recently went on a field trip for my newswriting class to a criminal courthouse to watch night court arraignments. There were several people that were charged with possession of marijuana, cocaine, or heroin that were allowed to leave the court freely. I don’t understand how something that our country views as serious enough to be considered a felony can at the same time be released as they are considered to be at flight risk. We had an opportunity to speak with the judge, and when asked about this said that drug laws are on the decline and this is why they are treated less harshly. It was fascinating to observe just how much of the decision process was under his control. Of course he had the written law to objectively follow, but there are inevitably some subjective qualities in his sentencing process.
I thought this was a good example of how harm reduction needs to be targeted towards both aspects of governance: the governmental regulations themselves and those in power to make real changes. With drug laws changing slowly but surely, and these changes slowly being reflected in key figures like judges, the United States is hopefully on the way to more of a harm reduction based model. But will our country ever be on the level of Europe in terms of our approach to drug laws?
-Jacqui Larsen
The Government and Our Health
Both the articles clearly show that our government is (or should be) a proponent of harm reduction and health among the population. It is very interesting to note that none of the articles spoke about the population doing anything, rather the blame falls largely on the government. It is also interesting to note that both articles seem to say that the government should be sympathetic towards the public, and specifically in the Harm Reduction article we see that banning drug use is NOT the answer to our problems.
What I took from this was a much better understanding of harm reduction. It always seemed obvious to me that in order for drug addicts to come clean, they really truly needed to do it on their own, and that if they aren’t sincere about the coming clean, then it wouldn’t matter, because they’ll always slip back in. I now realize just how much the government has to do with it. The government has to care for its people, because after all, the government is its people. In a democracy, the people run the government, not one person, nor a group of people acting on their own, but the population. The reason for that is so that everyone has a say in the government. So when everyone has a say, everyone needs to be taken care of, from the drug addicts to the poor, to the orphaned children, to the abused children, and to the homeless people of our population. Everyone deserves to be taken care of. The Harm Reduction article even shows just how helpful the government can be. It also shows that these drug addicts, who are frequently believed to not be able to return to society, can and will, and they do get better.
My question is: Why is the US so slow to adopt these principles if the Dutch government, which seems to share a lot of principles with the US government, was so quick to adopt many of the principles at once? We have the data to back up a lot of the assertions made in the Harm Reduction article. Why are we taking our time with this? Why are we wasting these drug addicts lives? We have so much to do, and so little time to do it.
Harm Reduction
I found the Harm Reduction overview interesting because before I went to Europe my study abroad professors told me about Amsterdam and how often a lot of students visit there simply because they speak English and are surprised by how open they are about marijuana and prostitution. One of my classmates from Amsterdam who studied abroad with me in Spain was extremely open with his usage of marijuana. To him it was something just like smoking a cigarette or having a shot of alcohol. I personally believe that both marijuana and prostitution should be legalized. Instead of shunning them out from society, I think it would be better to embrace them and try to help them especially in regards to prostitution. Often prostitutes are taken advantage of because what they’re doing is illegal but we should be able to provide a safe environment for them and have them get regular help check ups as part of the job.
Feedback on Harm Reduction Around the World and Emerging Strategies for Healthy Urban Governance
Harm reduction is a term that is not heard of often in the United States due to the massive stigmatization of drug addicts. When focusing on drug education, children are taught the “just say no” approach to drugs in public education programs such as DARE. Last semester, in my Intro to Sociology class, we discussed the ineffectiveness of programs such as DARE and some said that it led to an introduction and an increased curiosity in drugs rather than an aversion towards them. The “just say no” approach does not prevent drug usage and rather stigmatizes those who decide to take drugs rather than providing rehabilitation. It reminds me of abstinence-only sex education programs that take place in some regions of the United States. Just like the case with sex education, drug education policies are generally more liberal in areas in Europe than in the United States, although there are countries, such as France and Sweden, that have stricter drug policies. But, the United States, though having a relatively conservative drug policy, may end up having a slightly more liberal drug policy as debates about marijuana legalization become more prevalent. The issue of harm reduction also mixes in with the article “Emerging Strategies for Healthy Urban Governance” because drug policies are one of the most common issues that affect urban public health. What urban areas need are stable government programs that would enable the health of the people as well as to make sure that health care initiatives are affordable. This reminds me of the argument in the book Ghost Map, in which policies did not combat cholera, viewing the epidemic as based on people’s unhygienic choices. By viewing drug addiction as a stigma rather than as an issue of public health, urban areas, especially the poorer regions are paying the price.
Harm Reduction
Prior to taking this class, I was pretty unfamiliar with the harm reduction movement. We were all fortunate enough to be born after the AIDS crisis, so (I don’t know about all of you) the idea of harm reduction was never something that I was exposed to growing up. Therefore, I found the reading pretty interesting. I also liked how it did not only focus on the United States, but mentioned countries like the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Canada and even Australia. Unlike some of my classmates, there was not one specific model that caught my eye; they all stood out to me in different ways. For example, the Dutch model was certainly interesting because of the approach they decided to take with their drug users. There were “coffee shops” that sold drugs, while other parts of the city were sexually charged to say the least. I also found the UK model to be interesting because it literally allows drug users to be prescribed drugs on a maintenance basis. My question is, who decides this basis? How do they know where to draw the line? Also, do they really think giving the drug users more drugs is going to help? I understand the section in the reading when Marlatt says that in addition to many other things, giving them the drugs will prevent them from dropping out, but won’t this just continue to create a vicious cycle? Maybe I am not fully understanding the harm reduction movement, but I don’t see how it is that easy to just promote drug use.
